A National Survey to Assess LGBTQ+ Curricular Needs in Pediatrics Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Despite incremental increases in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) health education, there are no uniform training requirements in graduate medical education and the extent to which pediatrics residency programs incorporate LGBTQ+ curricula remains unknown. We aimed to assess the current state of LGBTQ+ health education in pediatrics residency programs. METHODS: We surveyed all 202 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited categorical pediatrics program directors (PDs) in the United States. PDs were contacted via the Association for Pediatrics Program Directors (APPD) listserv with a link to an anonymous electronic survey. RESULTS: We had a 53.4% response rate (107/202) with representation from all regions, sizes, and settings. Only 7.5% of programs have robust LGBTQ+ curricula, but many (71%) offer some sessions. About half (54.2%) believe their residents are not at all or somewhat prepared to care for LGBTQ+ patients after training. Many PDs are not at all or somewhat confident their residents learn about gender affirming care (49.5%) or are aware of community resources for LGBTQ+ youth (54.2%). In 91% of programs, 0-25% of faculty educate trainees about LGBTQ+ health. The majority (74.8%) of PDs are very or moderately likely to implement a standardized LGBTQ+ health curriculum. The most prominent barriers were inadequate time (55.1%) and lack of faculty training (51.4%). CONCLUSION: Many pediatrics programs have implemented some LGBTQ+ health education; however, PDs lack confidence in residents' abilities to independently care for LGBTQ+ youth after training. An accessible and standardized curriculum is not only needed but desired by programs.

Telemedicine in Pediatric Training: A National Needs Assessment of the Current State of Telemedicine Education in Pediatric Training.

PURPOSE: To describe the current state of telemedicine within pediatric training programs to inform development of a national telemedicine training curriculum for pediatric trainees. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous cross-sectional survey of pediatric residency (Fall 2020) and fellowship program directors (Spring 2021) on their current telemedicine practices in pediatric post-graduate training. RESULTS: Forty-eight US pediatric residency programs (n = 48/198, 24%) and 422 fellowship programs completed the survey (n = 422/872, 48%); combined response rate 44% (n = 470/1070). Pre-COVID-19, 12% (n = 57/470) of programs surveyed reported using telemedicine in their training program, but during the pandemic 71% (n = 334/470) reported telemedicine use with trainees. Over 71% (n = 334/470) agreed that a formalized curriculum is important, yet 69% (n = 262/380) of programs reporting telemedicine use either did not have a curriculum or were unsure if one existed at their program. Respondents who were unsure/not likely to add a telemedicine curriculum and/or indicated that a telemedicine curriculum would not be important (52% n = 243/470), cited "time" (55%, n = 136/243) most frequently as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Our needs assessment indicates marked increase in use of telemedicine with trainees by respondent pediatric training programs, with fewer than 50% reporting a formalized training curriculum and most agreeing that a curriculum is important.

Relative productivity of nurse practitioner and resident physician care models in the pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Duty hour restrictions limit the use of resident physicians in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs). We sought to determine the relative clinical productivity of PED attending physicians working with residents compared with PED attending physicians working with nurse practitioners (NPs). METHODS: In a tertiary care PED with multiple care models (PED attending physicians with residents and/or fellows, PED attending physicians with NPs, PED attending physicians alone), we identified periods when care was provided concurrently and exclusively by a PED attending physician with 1 to 2 residents (resident pod) and a PED attending physician with 1 NP (NP pod). Billing records were reviewed to determine relative value units (RVUs) generated and patients seen by each PED attending physician. Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage scores were used to compare patient acuities. RESULTS: The NP pods generated 5.35 RVUs per hour and the resident pods generated 4.35 RVUs per hour, with a significant difference of 1.00 RVUs per hour (95% confidence interval, 0.19-1.82). The NP pods saw 2.18 patients per hour, whereas the resident pods saw 1.90 patients per hour. This difference of 0.28 was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, -0.07 to 0.62). Patient acuity was similar. Thirteen percent of the NP pod patients had the highest triage severity levels of ESI-1 and ESI-2, whereas 19% of the resident pod patients were ESI-1 and ESI-2 (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric emergency department attending physicians in an NP care model had greater clinical productivity, measured by RVUs, than PED attending physicians in a resident care model while treating similar patient populations.